Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
In an ongoing discussion about the atonement, the rapture and the passing of the Law of Moses, an advocate of the AD 66 Rapture theory, Tom Riggle, made the rather amazing, yet unfortunately too common, claim that, “The last three so-called unfulfilled Feasts were fulfilled at Calvary.”
(The article, by Tom Riggle, can be found at 9a. Yahweh’s Final Fall Feast: Tabernacles https://asterisktom.wordpress.com/2025/11/19/9a-yahwehs-final-fall-feast-tabernacles/ Posted on November 19, 2025 by asterisktom)
I wrote a response to Riggle’s claim, but whereas he had, up to that point, been posting my responses on his blog, he let me know that he would no longer be doing that. His reason was that “you blocked me from your YouTube.” This was / is a blatant falsehood and I called him out on it. But he doubled down on it repeating his claim and stating that I had actually said I had blocked him on YouTube. Another falsehood. I then went to my YouTube channel and checked my “blocked” file. I have only blocked two people over a period of several years, and Tom Riggle is NOT one of them. When I provided that proof, he simply said: “Okay, I apologize. I was wrong. You said you were going to block me and I just took your word for it.” Once again, this a total fabrication! I NEVER stated, at any time, that I was going to block him. (He refused to apologize for continuing to tell these falsehoods).
Update: Riggle says he is now posting my responses to his posts. I have not confirmed this at the time of this writing.
This is my final article in response to Riggle’s claim that the final three feast days were fulfilled at the Cross– unless I find reason to write more. The fact is that Riggle is writing almost daily attacks on what I am saying. But for now, pay attention to Matthew 5:17-18 in light of Riggle’s claim that Jesus’ Incarnate time on earth had to be the time for the fulfillment of all the law and all the prophets. Be sure to read my second article for a refutation of this, but let me quickly note that in that installment I raised the issue of the passing of heaven and earth.
Jesus said “heaven and earth” had to pass before the Law could pass. I noted that if one posits the cross as the time of the passing of the law, then of necessity, they have to identify the “heaven and earth” that both Peter and John were anticipating their end in 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. Riggle responded that, “The Heaven and Earth that passed away is the separation that existed between Jews (Heaven) and Gentiles (Earth). This passing away had been signaled by the torn veil at that very same time.”
The observant reader will see immediately that Riggle is positing the passing of two separate and distinct heavens and earths! I pointed out that Riggle is on record stating that from the time of the Cross, all men, Jew and Gentile alike had full and equal access to heaven meaning that his claim that the distinctions between Jew and Gentile did not pass until AD 66 (the parousia) was falsified. Riggle did not respond to that, or if he did, I have not seen his response.
The bottom line is that Riggle is engaging in Argumentum ad desperatum– a non-Latin, “Latin” term that I coined, meaning arguments from desperation. He cannot defend his claims so, in desperation, he just makes stuff up as he goes along. (He just recently did this, shifting focus away from this subject to the priesthood of Melchisedec, falsely claiming that I don’t understand or appreciate its significance. This is nothing but smoke and dust– argumentum ad desperatum. But, to the point of this installment.
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17)
Before entering a full discussion of the text let me call attention once again that Paul uses the present participle and the future tense to speak of the still present “shadow” function of the New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths.” Not only did Paul say that the feast days and Sabbaths remained unfulfilled shadows at the time he wrote, he said they were “shadows of the good things about to come.” Mind you, Tom Riggle has recognized on other occasions that the Greek mello, in the infinitive, that I have rendered here as “about to come” does in fact refer to things to be imminently fulfilled. But what has Riggle done when I have appealed to the present and future tenses in Colossians 2 that show that the Law was still in effect, that it was still a shadow of the good things about to come? He has literally ridiculed me for appealing to those Greek tenses! Yet, he commonly insists that when HE appeals to the Greek tenses that we must honor his use of them!
The Greek of Colossians 2 is not even questionable. So, consider this in light of the issue of the Sabbaths that Paul mentioned.
What did the Sabbaths - all of them- symbolize, foreshadow and typify? Keep in mind that almost all of the feast days were Sabbaths. Just read Leviticus 23. They were occasions when no normal work was to be done. Thus, the Sabbaths came to represent– they were “convocations” - meaning rehearsals, of the good things to come. Gregory Beale notes that: “Judaism believed that the weekly Sabbath pointed to the eternal rest of the New creation.” (Gregory Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic), 793, n. 38).
Edershiem says that “according the ancients the Sabbath anticipated “that final Messianic Kingdom,” and, “ultimately to the eternal Sabbath of completed redemption, and completed ‘hallowing’ (Revelation 11).” (Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, (Updated Edition, Peabody, Mass., 2004), 134+).
Frankly, I am not aware of anyone that challenges or denies that the Sabbaths foreshadowed the final salvation rest. (I recognize that the Passover foreshadowed Christ’s death on the Cross, and that the Feast of unleavened bread foreshadowed sinlessness, as well as resurrection. Likewise, Pentecost foreshadowed the feast of first fruit– of the resurrection). But the final three feast days, the focus of Colossians 2 pointed to the eschatological consummation.
Perhaps there are or have been some commentators who deny these things, but I am not aware of them. (Yet, it would not surprise me if Riggle came up with some other suggestion). This raises a serious question: If the foreshadowing Sabbaths were fulfilled at the cross, that means that full salvation arrived at the cross. That is ostensibly Riggle’s position, although he says that in reality, Sukkot was not finally fulfilled until AD 66. But that means that full salvation did not arrive until AD 66!
If the Sabbath was fulfilled at the cross then the New Creation of Peter and Revelation had to come at the cross. Stunningly, since I raised this issue, Riggle says that one “heaven and earth” i.e. the Law, passed away at the cross. However, he then invented another heaven and earth – Jew and Gentile distinctions– that did not pass away until AD 66. So, in order to salvage his claim that the Law passed away at the cross, he literally invents two different heaven and earths. He seemingly fails to realize that it was the Law, Torah, that created the Jew / Gentile distinctions and divisions. Thus, if, as Riggle claims, the Law passed at the cross, then the Jew and Gentile distinctions passed away at the cross. But the fact that he posits the passing of the “heaven and earth” of Jew/Gentile distinction in AD 66, means, incontrovertibly, that the Law that created those distinctions did not pass away at the cross.
The fact is that the final three feasts of Israel, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot (not to mention Shemeni Atzerat, (the “eighth day” feast), all foreshadowed the final rest of salvation and resurrection. Did the NT writers all say that salvation was finished, consummated, at the Cross? In spite of claims from men like Riggle, the answer to that is, NO.
It has to be recognized that the NT– as almost all true scholars agree– posit what is known as the “already but not yet” of the redemptive process. That means that Christ initiated (and empowered) the Atonement / Redemption / Salvation process through the Cross and his resurrection, but, he was to come again, the second time, to consummate that process. Unfortunately, some, like Riggle, refuse to acknowledge this reality. But denial is just that. It is not proof. So, let’s turn to examining a few texts and arguments.
Note again that if salvation was completed at the cross then the Sabbaths were fulfilled and past away at the cross. But the NT reality is that Hebrews says “there remains– when Hebrews was written long after the Cross– “therefore a Sabbath for the children of God” (Hebrews 4:9). Thus, from the perspective of Hebrews, the Sabbaths were not fulfilled and they had not passed away.
Consider the following arguments that I have offered to Mr. Riggle, to which he has, to this date, not offered any kind of rebuttal. Keep in mind that Biblically, salvation, forgiveness, atonement and redemption may not be directly synonymous terms but they are so inter-related as to be inseparable. Atonement brings forgiveness and redemption brings deliverance which is salvation. This is almost universally recognized. And they are all part and parcel of the already but not yet matrix.
In Romans 11:26-27- Salvation / Atonement would come at the coming of the Lord out of Zion- the second coming. Notice how Paul equates salvation (“all Israel shall be saved”) with forgiveness (This is my covenant with them “when I take away their sin”).
That second coming was still future when Paul wrote.
Therefore, the consummation of the Atonement and salvation was still future when Paul wrote.
*************************** Ephesians 1:7- Paul said: In whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of our sin. (In this text, forgiveness, Atonement and redemption are synchronous).
The Ephesians (and early church) had been given the charismatic gifts of the Spirit as the "guarantee of the redemption of the purchased possession"- (Ephesians 1:12-13).
The Day of Redemption of the purchased possession was the parousia, which was still future when Paul wrote - (Ephesians 4:30).
Therefore, the consummation of the redemptive process-- the Atonement-- was still future when Paul wrote. And since the redemption was still future, that means that forgiveness was still future.
**************************In Hebrews 9 the Atonement- thus- forgiveness and salvation- would be consummated with the coming of the High Priest out of the MHP.
That coming was yet future-- at the parousia.
Therefore, the atonement - and salvation- would be consummated at the coming of Christ out of the MHP.
Notice that in Revelation 19:1-2 salvation would arrive at the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem, the harlot city.
**************************In Hebrews 9 there could no entrance into the Most Holy Place as long as Torah stood valid and binding.
In Revelation, no man could enter the Most Holy Place until the wrath of God would be consummated in the judgment of Babylon, the city where the Lord was crucified, i.e. Old Covenant Jerusalem.
The Judgment of Babylon would be at the coming of the Lord, Jesus as the Son of Man– Revelation 18-19.
Therefore, there was no entrance into the Most Holy Place until the coming of the Lord in the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem.
I have presented these arguments to Riggle repeatedly, but he has brushed them aside with no attempt at refutation. But to escape the force and truth of these texts, and there are many other supporting texts, Riggle and Edward Stevens completely redefine the “salvation” of Hebrews 9:28 and insist that it has nothing to do with the typological actions of Yom Kippur that the writer has focused on in the previous verses.Notice also that in Hebrews 9 the author says that under Torah there was no access or entrance into the Most Holy Place. Why? Because those Old Covenant sacrifices and practices could never take away sin. The point being that once forgiveness / Atonement was objectively received entrance into the MHP would become a reality and those sacrifices would “cease to be offered” (Hebrews 10:1-3). While the typological feast days, with their typological Sabbaths stood valid (and unfulfilled) there was no Sabbath rest of Salvation, the privilege of entering into the Most Holy Place.
Keep in mind that Riggle, while ostensibly claiming that the final three feast days (Sabbaths) were fulfilled at the Cross and that entrance into the MHP was fully opened, at the same time, he told us that certain “aspects” of Sukkot were not fulfilled until the Rapture in AD 66. What “aspect” of Sukkot was not fulfilled until AD 66, per Mr. Riggle? According to Mr. Riggle, AD 66 is when the OT saints and those raptured saints actually entered into the MHP! That was entrance into the ultimate soteriological Sabbath! Thus, it is massively self contradictory to say that the final eschatological feast days were fulfilled at the cross. And if those eschatological feast days were not fulfilled at the cross, then the Law did not pass away at the cross.
Now, if the Sabbaths were all fulfilled at the cross that means that the Atonement was completed– which is precisely what Riggle maintains. In fact, he says I am a false teacher because I say– with Scripture- that salvation was consummated at Christ’s second appearing– to bring forgiveness and redemption.
Well, according to Peter and John the final salvation, the final Sabbath rest– was to come at the destruction of the Old City. According to Revelation 14:13 it would be only after the parousia of Christ that rest (anapausis) would be enjoyed by those dying in Christ from then on:
Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them.”
In the Greek the word rest, is a future form of anapausis / anapauo, ἀναπαήσονται / anapaēsontai. This is a word commonly used in the OT to describe the Sabbath rest. Thus, Revelation depicts the Sabbath rest which was foreshadowed in the final three feast days as being fulfilled, not at the cross but at the coming of the Lord. This agrees perfectly with my syllogistic argument above on the entrance into the Most Holy Place only taking place at the time of the judgment of Babylon.So, what we find then is that when it is argued that the Law passed away at the cross, and that entrance into the MHP was opened at that time, and that the Atonement and salvation was finalized at that time, it creates a host of scriptural contradictions.
✔ It destroys the already but not yet.
✔ It destroys the chronological flow of the festal calendar, as I proved in my first installment. Be sure to read that.
✔ It is self contradictory, claiming on the one hand that the final three feast days were fulfilled at the cross, but then claiming that certain “aspects” of the Law remained valid until AD 66.
✔ It demands the creation of two separate and distinct sets of ‘heaven and earths” with one them, the law itself passing away at the cross, but the other, the distinction between Jew and Gentile, passing away in AD 66. This is a theological invention with no merit.
✔ It forces one to say, as Riggle does, that on the one hand the Law was nailed to the cross, and yet, it remained in effect as a condemning law for the unbelieving Jews until AD66.
✔ It destroys the present and future tense of the typology of the final three feast days, set forth in Colossians and Hebrews.
✔ It redefines the words of redemption, salvation, atonement in ways that are disjunctive in the contexts in which the redefinition are applied.
✔ It denies the emphatic declarations of scripture about when salvation, Sabbath rest, forgiveness and redemption would come, and that was at the parousia. What was initiated at the Cross was consummated and revealed at the parousia.
To confine the making of the atonement, the fulfillment of the Sabbath typology, etc. to the cross is a myopic view of scripture and ignores the panoramic scope of the last days fulfilment of all prophecy. For all of these reasons and more, I reject the arguments of Riggle and others that the Law of Moses ended at the cross. Be sure to get a copy of my book, The End of the Law, the Passing of the Law of Moses, for an depth study of this entire issue.
On the current site: original page ↗